|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 11 new digital Ocean's
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-07-2001 10:38 AM
I will be showing Oceans 11 on DLP but using the QuBit player rather than the AMS system.WB has requested that any site that will be using the AMS have a TDC (Technicolor Digital Cinema) technician on site. Only so many techs around so I have to use the QuBit. With very limited experience on the AMS, it will be quicker to setup a feature. Plan is to send a HD loaded with the master media and to copy it to an existing HD in the AMS. This copy takes a little bit longer than real-time, vs the 5-6 hours of feeding DVD's to the system. Once this is done, you create your platter, qc the show and once verified, copy the HD to a second drive for a backup. Paul.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dave Bird
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 777
From: Perth, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 12-07-2001 10:28 PM
Yeah, we're starting to hear this crap up here (it's playing in Toronto somewhere I think). "Can't tell the difference" and so on, so forth. Dear lord, what will movies be like when there isn't even ONE projectionist per 20 screens to periodically check and see what's on-screen?What I want to know, is if they really do require twice the light on screen, what does a 4K bulb use in electricity in an hour? Where will the savings be when the theatre cans its minimum wage operator but then has to run a 7K bulb or more? Ah, don't worry, some people say the internal combustion engine has been obsolete for 50 years, they're probably right, BUT nobody's ever come up with an economical alternative, not in the forseeable future...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man
Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 12-07-2001 11:06 PM
I never seen digital projection on the big screen. I have read pro's and con's. As for now, I stand neutral on the issue. The subject came up in one of our union meetings as far back as 1970 about using satellite transmission. If it comes to pass, I can see the theaters going nuts when there are sunspots. Those raise cain with the broadcasting industry even today. IMHO, it will take years before it will be mass marketed. The cost is just too high. What concerns me is that the small mom and pop theaters will be forced out of the market due to very high conversion costs. If I recall correctly, when SRD and DTS hit the market, some of the mom and pop theaters were left behind at first. Probably because of the limited number of processors available. The big boys had the proirity. It will be difficult for the mom and pop theaters to compete when any major player within several blocks of them has the financial backing to install and market such a system.
Paul
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 12-08-2001 01:23 AM
Not to be cranky, but you guys are missing the point. I've run 35mm for 25 years, and the digital projection looks perfectly acceptable on screens less than (about) 25 ft wide, and that's usually what's at your local multiplex. Note I did not say "better" or even "as good as" 35mm. But plenty good enough that the public will accept it.There are certainly problems with digital projection, but that's why these demos are done: to work out problems and publicly sell the concept. The quality is there *now* for smaller screens; next, the cost has to be reduced. It will take time, but it will happen. The increase in bulb cost will be nothing compaired to the savings by eliminating not just the booth staff, but the booth itself.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler
Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 12-08-2001 01:39 AM
Well, I have to disagree with that. One of the most annoying things about today's DLP projectors is their tiny contrast ratio, and that is independent of screen size. Even in the smallest cracker-box theaters today, I still get to see the full contrast range of film. Installing digital projectors in these auditoriums takes that away.Also, I think a larger problem is that industries tend to standardize on whatever comes along first. Proponents of digital cinema may make noise about upgrades in order to placate critics, but I think once they achieve a certain critical mass of installations, they will drop those pretenses and say "done!" Today's digital cinema is kinda-sorta okay, but I would really hate to see it become a de-facto standard for the next 20 years. The Technicolor system is particularly problematic in this regard, as Tech has no financial incentive to upgrade. Those 11 auditoriums are now stuck with the current state of digital cinema and will never improve. I'd bet money they will still be using the exact same projectors decades from now. I'd like to see "digital done right", not "digital done in a hurry".
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 12-08-2001 02:22 PM
Kodak's view of Digital Cinema:
Kodak Digital Cinema Technology
Kodak Imaging Technology Center in Hollywood
Kodak Digital Cinema System And a 22Mb QuickTime movie about it:
Kodak Digital Cinema QuickTime Movie 22Mb (IMHO, Kodak has a pretty realistic view of the future, and will continue to improve BOTH film and digital imaging technology.) As an example of unique Kodak technology that is needed for digital cinema, here is information about "digital watermarking" to aid in fighting film piracy:
Digital Cinema Watermarking Technology
Kodak Watermarking Technology ------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler
Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 12-10-2001 08:48 AM
Leo, I think you're right. Technicolor must be drooling at the prospect of charging the same amount as they do now, but only having to send out some data instead of a $2000 physical print. I can just hear them smacking their lips in anticipation. quote:
As for the news article posted by Aaron above; I think the author covered all the squares and was fair to 35mm as well.The last line of that article sums it up ....
Actually, looking at it again, I see that I originally misread the line "digital cinema aims to provide better picture quality" as implying that it already does. You're right, the article actually is pretty fair, although the focus of it is mainly on the economics. And yes, that last line is a good point, although I wonder if it really is true. Buzzwords seem to have more of an effect on some people than actual quality.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
No 35mm for backup AFAIK. And it's our old friend Technicolor that's going to inflict this on the public in some of the most important theaters around.
propaganda, courtesy of the San Diego Union-Tribune...
Printer-friendly view of this topic